Polygamy---Commanded by God in the Old Testament or Tolerated?

[_Ray A]

I think Charity's viewpoint should be considered in this respect: Whatever we may think of polygamy, many LDS women in the 19th century accepted it. If they felt it was a Divine commandment, who are we to judge them? Who are we to argue that they were "duped", ignorant or stupid for accepting it. Eliza Snow is one example of an intelligent woman who defended polygamy. Many others also did.

It's kind of patronising to think that women today are "more enlightened". You could also criticise Muslim women today who wear the veil, and who acknowledge a husband's patriarchial role, and like it that way. I know young Muslim women who choose this lifestyle over miniskirts and alcohol imbibing, and some of them would prefer sharing a good man than tolerating an abusive drunk. (No, this is not an apology for polygamy.)

If a woman believes that God sanctions polygamy, whether Muslim or Mormon, who are we to judge them? No matter what we think, this is between them, their God, and their religion. It's none of our business, unless abuses occur. Why not let them decide that?

[_charity]

Thanks, Ray. Finally somebody who isn't dismissing me as somebody who would like to live in a harem. That really rankled.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ray... :-)

I think Charity's viewpoint should be considered in this respect: Whatever we may think of polygamy, many LDS women in the 19th century accepted it. If they felt it was a Divine commandment, who are we to judge them? Who are we to argue that they were "duped", ignorant or stupid for accepting it. Eliza Snow is one example of an intelligent woman who defended polygamy. Many others also did.

It's kind of patronising to think that women today are "more enlightened". You could also criticise Muslim women today who wear the veil, and who acknowledge a husband's patriarchial role, and like it that way. I know young Muslim women who choose this lifestyle over miniskirts and alcohol imbibing, and some of them would prefer sharing a good man than tolerating an abusive drunk. (No, this is not an apology for polygamy.)

If a woman believes that God sanctions polygamy, whether Muslim or Mormon, who are we to judge them? No matter what we think, this is between them, their God, and their religion. It's none of our business, unless abuses occur. Why not let them decide that?

I have not heard anyone here judge any woman at all. I have not heard anyone say anything about women being duped, ignorant or stupid.

Just the opposite.

No one is saying anything about women who enjoy various forms of partnering. I've said this like a hundred times. (smile)

The problem, again is the idea that God commands something that feels so horrible to many women.

I think the ability for emotional intimacy and human bonding found in exclusive relationships is indeed new and highly evolved... this is not a judgment of individual choices but an observation about life and the history of mating patterns in life.

I do not see why people equate differences with judgments.

I like yoga and other people don't. I do not think others are degrading me or judging me by saying they do not get it, or they find it uncomfortable, or even weird. I like it, they do not. No big deal. Because I do find the idea of women sharing men disgusting, doesn't mean I find women disgusting or their choices. For example, I find cavier gross. Doesn't mean those who like it are gross. :-)

So, once again... I respect any woman who engages in whatever form of partnering she wishes. I truly do not care at all. I'm happy for those who find enjoyment in their various mating choices. I mean this.

This has nothing to do with the horror I feel towards a God who requires women engage in a form of mating that goes against everything that feels holy or good.

I totally get that what feels right to me is not necessarily what feels right to others. I'm not suggesting what feels holy to me is some sort of ultimate truth.

I'm suggesting that it is not healthy to try to make something that feels/seems horrible into something good and holy.

Does that help?

:-)


~dancer~

[_charity]

I totally get that what feels right to me is not necessarily what feels right to others. I'm not suggesting what feels holy to me is some sort of ultimate truth.

I'm suggesting that it is not healthy to try to make something that feels/seems horrible into something good and holy.

Does that help?

:-)


~dancer~

The only thing that is healthy from a long term view point is to conform ourselves to God's will. I guess that is a very individual decision.

[_Inconceivable]

I don't think I need to discuss this with you any more. I am obviously not going to get through to you. Your understanding will change at some point. Sounds to me like after you die.

What? Is TD past feeling? You can't get through to her. She'll see though, won't she? We all will. You gave your all. Now she is consigned to the rude awakening of the Great Judgement Bar when "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess". You'll testify against her that you did all you could, won't you? And her talents will be taken from her and given to you - oh righteous woman of entitlement.

You have not come to discuss, you came to prostylite. You did not come to understand, you came to call apostates to repentance. THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID YOU CAME TO DO. Is this behavior ethical or do you believe God justifies "strategem"?

Look at yourself, Charity.

You defend a church that began by men that would make you puke if any were your own husband. You would cry to God each night for the companionship of a soulmate just to hold you more than a few nights a month. You would lay awake wondering if you suffered by comparison as the bedboard in the next room banged against the wall. Or when, instead of taking you out, he was getting all pretty and smelling nice to go courting a younger woman - someone that wasn't sagging with stretch marks from high mileage, child bearing and spousal neglect. You would look at yourself in the mirror and wish you were still young and desirable - not for sex, but for companionship. Not just for intimacy, but for someone that would take a bath for you.

Knowing that the slightest expression of indifference would be a curse of loneliness and solitude.

During your 8 month of pregnancy you would lay awake for additional reasons. You would nearly give your soul to just get a backrub to ease the discomfort - knowing that your shared helpmeet was servicing someone else with lessor needs.

Taking time to dream together and make future plans. Time to discuss the needs of your children, your own needs and his. Time to share a moment on the porch at sunset when it seems that all the world is at peace.

As you lay alone. By yourself. Trapped by duty, covenant, tradition and the promises of a man that broke the heart of the only woman he ever should have been faithful to, loved and did not.

Charity, you would shoot this man dead. You would burn his carcass in your own house.

So why in the name of all that is holy would you defend dirtbags such as this?

Have you no empathy, humanity, charity or a sense of societal morality?


But another thought occurred to me. Charity, you honestly think you would be a first wife and a favorite, don't you?

Reality check.

[_Ray A]

I have not heard anyone here judge any woman at all. I have not heard anyone say anything about women being duped, ignorant or stupid.

Just the opposite.

No one is saying anything about women who enjoy various forms of partnering. I've said this like a hundred times. (smile)

The problem, again is the idea that God commands something that feels so horrible to many women.

TD, I'm not disputing that it felt horrible to many. If we can believe Brigham Young, it initially felt horrible to him, too, and Hyrum Smith, who initially opposed it, and the witnesses, who opposed it consistently. As I've said before, polygamy makes no sense to me, but I can't be dogmatic about this. I don't claim to know the mind of God, and I'm sure my studies don't approach anywhere near the mind of God. As you said, there is an infinity of possibilities. Because something isn't emotionally, intellectually, mentally, or logically appealing to me, doesn't mean it can't be true.

I think the ability for emotional intimacy and human bonding found in exclusive relationships is indeed new and highly evolved... this is not a judgment of individual choices but an observation about life and the history of mating patterns in life.

That may indeed be the case, but about 80% of the population is yet to grasp this. That's my opinion. I think monogamy is more ideal, but I can't refute the idea that there may be a "higher law", which, as odd as it may seem, is actually more ideal. Most animal species, for example, are polygamous. Can you correct me on this? How many animal species are strictly monogamous? I know apes aren't, and they are our closest relatives.

I do not see why people equate differences with judgments.

Only if you equate those differences with "bad", and "bad" is mostly formed from societal attitudes and traditions.

I like yoga and other people don't. I do not think others are degrading me or judging me by saying they do not get it, or they find it uncomfortable, or even weird. I like it, they do not. No big deal. Because I do find the idea of women sharing men disgusting, doesn't mean I find women disgusting or their choices. For example, I find cavier gross. Doesn't mean those who like it are gross. :-)

I LOVE cavier. Remnants of the "dog food" discussion. No, it doesn't mean they are gross. Women sharing men "could" be like Cavier, to some. They may genuinely prefer this, as difficult as it is for others to understand. And not because of sexual preferences, but because of character preferences.

So, once again... I respect any woman who engages in whatever form of partnering she wishes. I truly do not care at all. I'm happy for those who find enjoyment in their various mating choices. I mean this.

This has nothing to do with the horror I feel towards a God who requires women engage in a form of mating that goes against everything that feels holy or good.

See my bold qualifier, TD. I share your opinion, by the way. I would like one woman, one love, one "mate". And no other. I can't even grasp how I can love two women, much less 42. But should I completely close off "alternative thinking"? The least I can do is remain openminded, even to things that currently make me feel somewhat ill. And I mean that. I do think monogamy is the ideal, and I appreciate your posts along this line. I think you're being honourable and sincere in your opinions, but I can't discount Charity, either.

I totally get that what feels right to me is not necessarily what feels right to others. I'm not suggesting what feels holy to me is some sort of ultimate truth.

I'm suggesting that it is not healthy to try to make something that feels/seems horrible into something good and holy.

This is the qualifier: to me.

Once again, I'm not posting this as a defense of polygamy. I'm posting it as a defense of free speech, and belief. Charity is entitled to her views, without recrimination. Maybe if she actually experienced polygamy, she might have a different opinion. Then again, she may be sincere, and feel she's doing/saying what God wants, and that may be far more important to her than the "evils of polygamy". For all you and I know, she may be even a more steadfast defender and believer than Eliza Snow. Her God, and her religion, comes first. And as weird as it may seem to many, I admire that. She has been endlessly ridiculed here. But she is entitled to her opinion/ belief, no matter how much it differs from others, and I'm not saying you dispute this. The reference to "harems" is offensive to her, because it sounds like cheap sex, and that isn't how she perceives polygamy.

[_charity]

I don't think I need to discuss this with you any more. I am obviously not going to get through to you. Your understanding will change at some point. Sounds to me like after you die.

What? Is TD past feeling? You can't get through to her. She'll see though, won't she? We all will. You gave your all. Now she is consigned to the rude awakening of the Great Judgement Bar when "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess". You'll testify against her that you did all you could, won't you? And her talents will be taken from her and given to you - oh righteous woman of entitlement.

Obviously, TD has very strong feelings. TEstify against her? I won't be testifying. The judgement is between the person and the Lord. We will know everthing, and the Lord will know every intent of our hearts. That will be completley between her and the Lord. I don't expect to receive anyone's talents. I hope to retain my own. That will be a big enough job for me.

You have not come to discuss, you came to prostylite. You did not come to understand, you came to call apostates to repentance. THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID YOU CAME TO DO. Is this behavior ethical or do you believe God justifies "strategem"?

I have no hope of converting any of those of you who are here to speak against the Church, its doctrines, leaders, history or practice. I am here to speak up for the truth as I see it.

Look at yourself, Charity.

You defend a church that began by men that would make you puke if any were your own husband.

I respect the men who were in the early history of the Church. And I respect and reverence the Man who "began" the Church, Jesus Christ.

[

You would cry to God each night for the companionship of a soulmate just to hold you more than a few nights a month. You would lay awake wondering if you suffered by comparison as the bedboard in the next room banged against the wall. Or when, instead of taking you out, he was getting all pretty and smelling nice to go courting a younger woman - someone that wasn't sagging with stretch marks from high mileage, child bearing and spousal neglect. You would look at yourself in the mirror and wish you were still young and desirable - not for sex, but for companionship. Not just for intimacy, but for someone that would take a bath for you. Knowing that the slightest expression of indifference would be a curse of loneliness and solitude. During your 8 month of pregnancy you would lay awake for additional reasons. You would nearly give your soul to just get a backrub to ease the discomfort - knowing that your shared helpmeet was servicing someone else with lessor needs.

So that is the way you would treat your wives if you were married plurally doesn't mean that all men are low life bums. My husband and I have discussed the requirements of plural marriage, and we would have an ennobling and loving relationship. See, the men whom the Lord commands are not the dregs of the barrel you describe. And if they are that way to more than one wife, they would treat a mongamous wife curelly as well. It is because of their characters. That may be why women have said they would rather have half of a good man than all of a bad one. What a pitiful life you must have.

Taking time to dream together and make future plans. Time to discuss the needs of your children, your own needs and his. Time to share a moment on the porch at sunset when it seems that all the world is at peace. As you lay alone. By yourself. Trapped by duty, covenant, tradition and the promises of a man that broke the heart of the only woman he ever should have been faithful to, loved and did not.

I see you understanding nothing of true and pure love. Only selfish love. Your picture of how you would treat more than one wife is pretty disgusting. That isn't what my husband would have done. He's a lot better than that.

Charity, you would shoot this man dead. You would burn his carcass in your own house. So why in the name of all that is holy would you defend dirtbags such as this? Have you no empathy, humanity, charity or a sense of societal morality?

I wouldn't be in that kind of marriage with that kind of man. It is really pitiful that this is what you think all men are like. I can only think it must be because you see that in yourself.

Since you have been so forceful in demanding societal morality, empathy, humanity. Let me tell you what I think a plural marriage would be like.

One really good man, kind, loving, considerate, honest. He and his first wife have the best kind of relationship, emotional intimacy, passion, committment to each other. They share intimate moments, sunsets, plans, dreams. Then a second wife enters the scene. A woman who without this man would either have no husband at all, or have a man who was not near the kind of man the husband in this scenario is. A crude, insenstive man who would not treat her with respect. Wife #1 is willing to share so that another woman can have a good and wonderful marriage.

The man will treat both with respect. He can love both. The two will not be jealous of the love he has for the other. He will treat both well. He won't neglect one for the other. And if there are competing needs at times, the two wives will be unselfish and not demanding.

The relationship I have just described is a better marriage than 75% of women have with just one husband.

But another thought occurred to me. Charity, you honestly think you would be a first wife and a favorite, don't you?

Because I am the first woman my husband was sealed to, I will be the first wife. He is such a good man, he would not have a favorite. And if I die before he does, he will doubtless marry again. And he will marry a woman who has not been previously sealed. So in the eternities, we will have a plural marraige. That thought does not cause me any worry or concern.

Reality check.

You don't share my reality. Mine is beautiful. Yours is ugly.

[_Inconceivable]

I see you understanding nothing of true and pure love. Only selfish love. Your picture of how you would treat more than one wife is pretty disgusting... It is really pitiful that this is what you think all men are like. I can only think it must be because you see that in yourself.

Huh? That came out of nowhere. You have no knowledge. To describe a treaturous relationship equates to a lack of understanding of a chaste, honest and selfless one? No.

Firing potshots at the messenger? What does it matter what I practice/believe if my statements have merit?

That isn't what my husband would have done. He's a lot better than that.

Better at? You think strongly that your husband could have "done" the subordinate wife.. better? Well, with that logic, you would be entitled to only half of an opinion. Maybe I should ask your husband because his would at least be equal to value of one of mine.

Perhaps if you and your husband's other shielas could come to some sort of concensus I could weigh it with one of a man's.

Are you aware that women did not have the right to vote during the period of Mormon adultery? I guess legally you'd have no opinion.

I wouldn't be in that kind of marriage with that kind of man.

My point exactly. You would have shot Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt... Do some 3rd grade math. It should give you a pretty good idea who and where Mormon adulterers spent their time with.

..The relationship I have just described is a better marriage than 75% of women have with just one husband.

Another quote from a book found only at the reference desk of your mind.

[_charity]

I started a point by point reply to inconceivable, but then I erased it.

He obviously cannot understand anything about selfless love, so why even try.

But it does sadden me that someone can see so little above what a small and petty mind can envision.

For posters and lurkers, I hope you can rise above that level, and understand that people, both men and women, can be far better than that. People can truly put another person's welfare above their own, they can sacrifice so that others may share in a good life, they can become Christ-like in their devotion to others.

[_Jason Bourne]

Dancer, you seem to think that when your idea and God's idea don't match, that He is wrong and you are right. Did you ever consider that it will be your understanding that will be changed?

Charity

have you ever thought that what you think about God's ideas really are not God's ideas and that you just might be wrong? Have you considered that reasonable persons can conclude that certain things, like polygamy, just are really not good things and rather then try to make a square peg fit in a round hole with explanations (like IT IS GOD"S WAY TO SEE IF WE CAN BE UNSELFISH< OR REALLY OBEDIENT) that in any other situation we would find nonsensical, they reject it. Why is it the LDS party line is alway right. Think woman! Maybe, just maybe, it really was and is bad.

One of the clues that it is your idea that is haywire is when you continually refer to plural marriage as primitive mating of animals.

And maybe a clue that you are on the wrong side of this is the fact that really, you do not want to share your husband but you twist thing to make it seem like something noble if you do, when it is not noble at all.

I don't think I need to discuss this with you any more. I am obviously not going to get through to you. Your understanding will change at some point. Sounds to me like after you die. But everything will be fine

Oh my GOSH!!!!!! Utterly and simply AMAZING!!!